Today's New Jersey State Senate vote against a bill that would legalize gay marriage is quite a hit to the cause of equality, the progressive community, and to me personally. To me, it is unconscionable that a legislative body could refuse their sworn oath to ensure that our laws uphold the Constitution, but that is exactly what happened this afternoon in the Senate chambers in Trenton.
While watching an online live stream of the debate, I was struck by the words of one particular Senator. Her name is Teresa Ruiz, and she represents District 29, which includes the very diverse city of Newark. Senator Ruiz is the first Latina state Senator in New Jersey's history, and her upraising clearly shined through with her words today.
While making her speech in favor of gay marriage, Senator Ruiz recalled her personal experience with being deemed "the other", concluding by stating she doesn't ever want to take a vote that says, "it's okay for me, but not for you."
Senator Ruiz's words are a subtle, yet powerful wake-up call to those who are in the laissez-faire camp when it comes to gay marriage - the people who say "it doesn't matter to me whether gay people can get married or not."
I am completely confident that a sizable portion of the individuals who feel this way were once classified themselves as "others", minority groups on the outside looking in, fighting desperately to obtain the rights they so deserved.
Specifically on the topic of marriage, it was not until 1967 when the Supreme Court legalized interracial marriage; and that was only two years after blacks received full suffrage rights with the outlaw of Jim Crow laws.
And it was not until 1920 when the Nineteenth Amendment to the US Constitution granted women full suffrage rights. Some of you who are lucky enough to have older grandmothers and great-grandmothers still with us have a direct line of communication to a time period when your female relatives could not vote.
I find this notion of "the others" in regard to women particularly of importance in the sciences. It was not long ago when a woman with a Ph.D. in the sciences was rarity; indeed, only a mere few decades ago. Thankfully, over the past 20 years or so we have started to come to our senses as a country and have supported women in science extensively, yet there is even more to be done in order to ensure that women have the opportunity to vie for and succeed in getting more leadership and high administrative positions.
Finally, I want to end with a comment about the entire process of legislating civil rights. Personally, I don't believe that civil rights should ever be put up for a vote in the first place, as I believe they are innate for all humans, but because the forces of inequality and bigotry are still strong, it is responsible that we have tenable legislation to protect our inalienable rights. Opponents of gay marriage often project a desire for this issue to be decided by the people via referendum, and fortunately for them, every time that gay marriage has made it to the ballot it has been rejected.
Perhaps some of you are thinking, "well, it was the will of the people, so we must accept the outcome." I would counter with this then: what would you say if women's suffrage was put to a referendum and failed? The response I'm sure I would get would be something along the lines of "why, there's no way that women's suffrage would ever be rejected!" Of course, in 2010, that is the case, but back in 1915 in New Jersey, it was a different outcome; a special election referendum proposing to legalize women's suffrage failed 58-42%.
Obviously, it is 2010 and not 1915 (thankfully), but the overall point remains - many of our civil rights that we take for granted were at one time forcefully kept from us. Luckily, at least for women and black suffrage and interracial marriage, we have progressed as a society. In our society, however, we still have "others" who are treated as lesser men and women by their peers, an attitude that was disgracefully upheld today in the New Jersey State Senate.
As a white, straight male, I am part of a unique group that has escaped "the other" status. White men have long held power and have crafted legislation that benefits them keeping their power. Thankfully, I am cognizant of this fact and strive to ensure that we no longer have a need for our friends to be deemed as "others".
As a white, straight male you may not think that the issue of gay marriage means much to me - I hope that by reading this I can convince you otherwise.
12/16/2009
Hope Springs Eternal
So I know I should be studying now, but my mind is so racing with thoughts that I had to take a break and make a post.
I had a good conversation with my friend Ace today about some things. It was a good moment of personal reflection, which I think is necessary every so often. And whenever I do so, I always end up rekindling some of my thoughts and wonders about the world. Some are deep and provocative, some are silly, but no matter their classification, they always end up in my mind. And at the forefront tonight is the concept of eternity.
Eternity has always been mysterious for me. The thought of its existence can be only grasped in our mind, as is the case with the concept of infinity. Combining my curiosity about eternity and my appreciation of elegant writing, I have to look no further than James Joyce for a stunning description of eternity.
I read "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" in high school, and while it wasn't my favorite book, I enjoyed certain portions of it - specifically the portrayal of eternity as well as the villanelle in part 4 (I'm a sucker for highly structured poetry).
I don't remember too much about the overall story, but the part I'm referring to deals with the young protagonist being lectured amongst his peers by a priest about the damnation of hell and how it represents the physical and spiritual punishment of sin by God. And after reading the particular section, of which I am about to post, I was struck by the potency of the words, which were crafted into a beautiful yet dark portrayal of the unfathomable breadth of eternity. You can read the text below; I have inserted paragraph breaks in order to make it easier to read:
"Last and crowning torture of all the tortures of that awful place is the eternity of hell. Eternity! O, dread and dire word. Eternity! What mind of man can understand it? And remember, it is an eternity of pain. Even though the pains of hell were not so terrible as they are, yet they would become infinite, as they are destined to last for ever. But while they are everlasting they are at the same time, as you know, intolerably intense, unbearably extensive. To bear even the sting of an insect for all eternity would be a dreadful torment. What must it be, then, to bear the manifold tortures of hell for ever? For ever! For all eternity! Not for a year or for an age but for ever.
Try to imagine the awful meaning of this. You have often seen the sand on the seashore. How fine are its tiny grains! And how many of those tiny little grains
go to make up the small handful which a child grasps in its play. Now imagine a mountain of that sand, a million miles high, reaching from the earth to the farthest heavens, and a million miles broad, extending to remotest space, and a million miles in thickness; and imagine such an enormous mass of countless particles of sand multiplied as often as there are leaves in the forest, drops of water in the mighty ocean, feathers on birds, scales on fish, hairs on animals, atoms in the vast expanse of the air: and imagine that at the end of every million years a little bird came to that mountain and carried away in its beak a tiny grain of that sand. How many millions upon millions of centuries would pass before that bird had carried away even a square foot of that mountain, how many eons upon eons of ages before it had carried away all? Yet at the end of that immense stretch of time not even one instant of eternity could be said to have ended.
At the end of all those billions and trillions of years eternity would have scarcely begun. And if that mountain rose again after it had been all carried away, and if the bird came again and carried it all away again grain by grain, and if it so rose and sank as many times as there are stars in the sky, atoms in the air, drops of water in the sea, leaves on the trees, feathers upon birds, scales upon fish, hairs upon animals, at the end of all those innumerable risings and sinkings of that immeasurably vast mountain not one single instant of eternity could be said to have ended; even then, at the end of such a period, after that eon of time the mere thought of which makes our very brain reel dizzily, eternity would scarcely have begun."
I am still in awe of this portrayal of eternity, and it has made me think about my views on religion and spirituality. It seems to me like Pascal's Wager is a good bet.
And if James Joyce isn't up your cup of tea, you can always grasp the concept of forever care of "The Sandlot", my all time favorite movie. (fast forward to 2:02 if you want to cliff notes version)
As always, comments are welcomed and encouraged.
Cheers.
I had a good conversation with my friend Ace today about some things. It was a good moment of personal reflection, which I think is necessary every so often. And whenever I do so, I always end up rekindling some of my thoughts and wonders about the world. Some are deep and provocative, some are silly, but no matter their classification, they always end up in my mind. And at the forefront tonight is the concept of eternity.
Eternity has always been mysterious for me. The thought of its existence can be only grasped in our mind, as is the case with the concept of infinity. Combining my curiosity about eternity and my appreciation of elegant writing, I have to look no further than James Joyce for a stunning description of eternity.
I read "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" in high school, and while it wasn't my favorite book, I enjoyed certain portions of it - specifically the portrayal of eternity as well as the villanelle in part 4 (I'm a sucker for highly structured poetry).
I don't remember too much about the overall story, but the part I'm referring to deals with the young protagonist being lectured amongst his peers by a priest about the damnation of hell and how it represents the physical and spiritual punishment of sin by God. And after reading the particular section, of which I am about to post, I was struck by the potency of the words, which were crafted into a beautiful yet dark portrayal of the unfathomable breadth of eternity. You can read the text below; I have inserted paragraph breaks in order to make it easier to read:
"Last and crowning torture of all the tortures of that awful place is the eternity of hell. Eternity! O, dread and dire word. Eternity! What mind of man can understand it? And remember, it is an eternity of pain. Even though the pains of hell were not so terrible as they are, yet they would become infinite, as they are destined to last for ever. But while they are everlasting they are at the same time, as you know, intolerably intense, unbearably extensive. To bear even the sting of an insect for all eternity would be a dreadful torment. What must it be, then, to bear the manifold tortures of hell for ever? For ever! For all eternity! Not for a year or for an age but for ever.
Try to imagine the awful meaning of this. You have often seen the sand on the seashore. How fine are its tiny grains! And how many of those tiny little grains
go to make up the small handful which a child grasps in its play. Now imagine a mountain of that sand, a million miles high, reaching from the earth to the farthest heavens, and a million miles broad, extending to remotest space, and a million miles in thickness; and imagine such an enormous mass of countless particles of sand multiplied as often as there are leaves in the forest, drops of water in the mighty ocean, feathers on birds, scales on fish, hairs on animals, atoms in the vast expanse of the air: and imagine that at the end of every million years a little bird came to that mountain and carried away in its beak a tiny grain of that sand. How many millions upon millions of centuries would pass before that bird had carried away even a square foot of that mountain, how many eons upon eons of ages before it had carried away all? Yet at the end of that immense stretch of time not even one instant of eternity could be said to have ended.
At the end of all those billions and trillions of years eternity would have scarcely begun. And if that mountain rose again after it had been all carried away, and if the bird came again and carried it all away again grain by grain, and if it so rose and sank as many times as there are stars in the sky, atoms in the air, drops of water in the sea, leaves on the trees, feathers upon birds, scales upon fish, hairs upon animals, at the end of all those innumerable risings and sinkings of that immeasurably vast mountain not one single instant of eternity could be said to have ended; even then, at the end of such a period, after that eon of time the mere thought of which makes our very brain reel dizzily, eternity would scarcely have begun."
I am still in awe of this portrayal of eternity, and it has made me think about my views on religion and spirituality. It seems to me like Pascal's Wager is a good bet.
And if James Joyce isn't up your cup of tea, you can always grasp the concept of forever care of "The Sandlot", my all time favorite movie. (fast forward to 2:02 if you want to cliff notes version)
As always, comments are welcomed and encouraged.
Cheers.
11/28/2009
The Medicine Machine
**This is a summary and response to an article entitled "The Body Synthetic", which is published in this month's edition of Wired Magazine**
Would you trust a medical treatment regimen developed from a computer? David Eddy, renowned physician and mathematician, hopes you would. Over his career, Eddy has had a remarkable impact in the healthcare field, obsessively promoting his "evidence-based medicine" as to what should be the field's standard of practice. In doing so, Eddy has been a game-changer in a field often ruled by tradition, but his medical recommendations have not come without controversy.
In 1980 while working for the American Cancer Society, Eddy crafted new guidelines that recommended women be screened for cervical cancer every three years rather than annually; the switch in policy would save approximately $1 billion in medical costs per year. In the late 1980s, now consulting for Duke University and Blue Cross Blue Shield, Eddy argued against the insurance company from covering a breast cancer treatment that involved high-dose chemotherapy followed by bone marrow transplant. The reason - there was no data that indicated the treatment saved lives. Several years later, after a national firestorm of debate, and even hate mail, clinical trials proved all along that Eddy was right - the treatment had no effect on patient survival.
Fast forward to 2009, where Eddy's obsession and acuity for expansive data trees has translated into Archimedes, Inc., a company formed around a computer clinical trial model system of the same name. Developed and tweaked over the 15 years, Archimedes struck gold when it correctly predicted the results of the Cards trial, a seven year trial that ran from 1997 to 2004 which demonstrated the medical benefits of statin drugs. This favorable result was on top of a remarkable 99% correlation rate after testing 74 previous clinical trials. Eddy boasts of this result, stating that equations "really do seem to represent what Mother Nature is doing."
But despite the seemingly convincing results from Archimedes, some clinicians remain skeptical about the reliability of a mathematical model to correctly emulate the results of a would-be clinical trial. Zeke Emmanuel, health policy adviser for the Obama administration, calls Archimedes "sophisticated but speculative." Additionally, Archimedes wrongly predicted the effects of a new cholesterol drug named Torcetrapib. Eddy doesn't deny this unfavorable result from his program and shifts the focus, saying that Archimedes could positively impact the health industry when it makes wrong predictions by causing physicians to reevaluate the conventional wisdom regarding the involved disease physiologies.
My main concern with using Archimedes or other similar computer model systems is echoed in the article. The problem is several layers deep. The first layer can be inferred from Eddy's own statements. Just because Archimedes can represent what Mother Nature is doing doesn't mean it knows how. Next, the fact that Archimedes needs to be tweaked to represent the latest knowledge of a certain disease or physiological pathway itself isn't problematic. In fact, as with the less technological canons of medicine, this tweaking is a positive action to impart better treatment. The problem in doing this for a complex computer model system with equations linked to each other is that changing one variable can affect a myriad of equations, potentially throwing off estimations for another part of the model.
The last layer is linked to the second. The output from Archimedes is the result of the apex of data crunching, but no one (save for Eddy himself) can follow the highly advanced equations used to derive the results. As the director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital David Nathan says, "All the calculations happen inside a black box."
From this quote, I am reminded of my high school AP Calculus class. Other than for practice questions from the test itself that required the use of a calculator, our class wasn't allowed to use them. The reason? Our math teacher insisted on us knowing how to do by hand what the calculator - or as he called, "the magic box" - did behind the scenes. That way, we had a better appreciation for what the calculator was doing, plus it allowed us to double check our work. Relating this anecdote to the computer model, how do we know that the calculations being churned by Archimedes are really modeling what happens in our body?
A final note. I am intrigued that the program is called Archimedes. We all know of the famous ancient mathematician, and those who receive emails from me are quite familiar with one of his most famous quotations: "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." The concept of actually moving the Earth is quite overwhelming, but the math doesn't lie - a long and strong enough lever will indeed be able to move this planet of ours. I include that quotation in my email signature because it reminds me of human innovation and the abilities of science to affect our world; to take the most daunting problems head on and say, "I can solve you." And while I'm not sure if I would subject my health solely to the results of a computer model, I am, too, aware of the power of science impacting our lives. I don't want to be an immovable blockade against medicinal progress, but knowing how difficult it can be to model molecular pathways from my education as a scientist, I just want us to make sure we have every base covered before we start replacing human clinical trials with computer models.
What do you think? Please share your thoughts below.
Would you trust a medical treatment regimen developed from a computer? David Eddy, renowned physician and mathematician, hopes you would. Over his career, Eddy has had a remarkable impact in the healthcare field, obsessively promoting his "evidence-based medicine" as to what should be the field's standard of practice. In doing so, Eddy has been a game-changer in a field often ruled by tradition, but his medical recommendations have not come without controversy.
In 1980 while working for the American Cancer Society, Eddy crafted new guidelines that recommended women be screened for cervical cancer every three years rather than annually; the switch in policy would save approximately $1 billion in medical costs per year. In the late 1980s, now consulting for Duke University and Blue Cross Blue Shield, Eddy argued against the insurance company from covering a breast cancer treatment that involved high-dose chemotherapy followed by bone marrow transplant. The reason - there was no data that indicated the treatment saved lives. Several years later, after a national firestorm of debate, and even hate mail, clinical trials proved all along that Eddy was right - the treatment had no effect on patient survival.
Fast forward to 2009, where Eddy's obsession and acuity for expansive data trees has translated into Archimedes, Inc., a company formed around a computer clinical trial model system of the same name. Developed and tweaked over the 15 years, Archimedes struck gold when it correctly predicted the results of the Cards trial, a seven year trial that ran from 1997 to 2004 which demonstrated the medical benefits of statin drugs. This favorable result was on top of a remarkable 99% correlation rate after testing 74 previous clinical trials. Eddy boasts of this result, stating that equations "really do seem to represent what Mother Nature is doing."
But despite the seemingly convincing results from Archimedes, some clinicians remain skeptical about the reliability of a mathematical model to correctly emulate the results of a would-be clinical trial. Zeke Emmanuel, health policy adviser for the Obama administration, calls Archimedes "sophisticated but speculative." Additionally, Archimedes wrongly predicted the effects of a new cholesterol drug named Torcetrapib. Eddy doesn't deny this unfavorable result from his program and shifts the focus, saying that Archimedes could positively impact the health industry when it makes wrong predictions by causing physicians to reevaluate the conventional wisdom regarding the involved disease physiologies.
My main concern with using Archimedes or other similar computer model systems is echoed in the article. The problem is several layers deep. The first layer can be inferred from Eddy's own statements. Just because Archimedes can represent what Mother Nature is doing doesn't mean it knows how. Next, the fact that Archimedes needs to be tweaked to represent the latest knowledge of a certain disease or physiological pathway itself isn't problematic. In fact, as with the less technological canons of medicine, this tweaking is a positive action to impart better treatment. The problem in doing this for a complex computer model system with equations linked to each other is that changing one variable can affect a myriad of equations, potentially throwing off estimations for another part of the model.
The last layer is linked to the second. The output from Archimedes is the result of the apex of data crunching, but no one (save for Eddy himself) can follow the highly advanced equations used to derive the results. As the director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital David Nathan says, "All the calculations happen inside a black box."
From this quote, I am reminded of my high school AP Calculus class. Other than for practice questions from the test itself that required the use of a calculator, our class wasn't allowed to use them. The reason? Our math teacher insisted on us knowing how to do by hand what the calculator - or as he called, "the magic box" - did behind the scenes. That way, we had a better appreciation for what the calculator was doing, plus it allowed us to double check our work. Relating this anecdote to the computer model, how do we know that the calculations being churned by Archimedes are really modeling what happens in our body?
A final note. I am intrigued that the program is called Archimedes. We all know of the famous ancient mathematician, and those who receive emails from me are quite familiar with one of his most famous quotations: "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." The concept of actually moving the Earth is quite overwhelming, but the math doesn't lie - a long and strong enough lever will indeed be able to move this planet of ours. I include that quotation in my email signature because it reminds me of human innovation and the abilities of science to affect our world; to take the most daunting problems head on and say, "I can solve you." And while I'm not sure if I would subject my health solely to the results of a computer model, I am, too, aware of the power of science impacting our lives. I don't want to be an immovable blockade against medicinal progress, but knowing how difficult it can be to model molecular pathways from my education as a scientist, I just want us to make sure we have every base covered before we start replacing human clinical trials with computer models.
What do you think? Please share your thoughts below.
11/14/2009
What You See Is What You Get
So I haven't blogged in ages. I could use the convenient and all-too-common "I'm busy" excuse, but honestly, that's a cop out. I haven't been too busy for wasting time browsing Facebook or Texts From Last Night or other completely mindless things. True, I have been busy (not so much now), but the main reason my posts have ceased up to this point has been based on an internal conflict about the mission of this blog. I enjoy my little bully pulpit to rant about my opinions on science and non-science news items, but the main reason I created this blog was so that my readers - my family, friends, and peers - could connect with a more personal side of me.
"Penn To Paper" is my online diary, if you will. It seems likely that most individuals keeping their innermost thoughts and reflections under the protection of a little padlock and key actually want to share them. I certainly do. Not necessarily because I always have interesting things to say, but because perhaps my readers can individually connect with the things I write.
This connection, however, is diminished when I'm hesitant about how much I give up about myself. I'm not saying that I intend to reveal every single detail about my life, but I have always excessively monitored my behavior and to some extent, my personality depending on whom I'm with at a certain moment. In social psychology terms of Self Monitoring, that makes me a high self-monitor. It's not to say I'm fake, but I like to analyze each social situation and adjust accordingly. And to be honest, being a high self-monitor has some fairly significant drawbacks.
I finally took the time to figure out why I constantly tweak my behavior and personality depending on the situation I'm in. All throughout high school and college, I've felt the need to be liked by all individuals I come into contact with in order to cope with my self-consciousness in several areas. And I'm still doing this in graduate school, but now as I take some time to reflect on it, I have to ask myself why? It's not worth it to change who I am in order to gain some false approval just so I can feel better about myself. I think I'd feel a lot better about myself if I just were the same person all the time.
A big part of doing the above is being more open about myself, so I'm going to mention some things below - some humorous and snarky, some much more serious. In doing so, I hope you can gather a more complete picture of who I am.
-I have extreme Rutgers spirit, to the point where all my Penn friends almost surely find it annoying (and have probably done so for the past month).
-I enjoy watching trashy TV, and I don't plan on stopping anytime soon.
-During elementary school, I can count how many times I had friends over my house on one hand (due to the fact that my parents were divorced and my mom had to work two jobs).
-I tend to rationalize everything (see above item).
-I take all forms of rejection as an opinion of myself, rather than as a reflection of the individual circumstance.
-I have a habit of posting lyrics as my Facebook status; Oftentimes, they are directed towards certain people.
-I feel the only people who really understand me are my mom, dad, and twin brother.
That's a decent sized list detailing some of my thoughts and ideals. Overall, this post has very cathartic and has helped me refocus. Take what you want from it, but I hope this has shown you that there is much more to me than just the energetic redhead you see on a daily basis.
"Penn To Paper" is my online diary, if you will. It seems likely that most individuals keeping their innermost thoughts and reflections under the protection of a little padlock and key actually want to share them. I certainly do. Not necessarily because I always have interesting things to say, but because perhaps my readers can individually connect with the things I write.
This connection, however, is diminished when I'm hesitant about how much I give up about myself. I'm not saying that I intend to reveal every single detail about my life, but I have always excessively monitored my behavior and to some extent, my personality depending on whom I'm with at a certain moment. In social psychology terms of Self Monitoring, that makes me a high self-monitor. It's not to say I'm fake, but I like to analyze each social situation and adjust accordingly. And to be honest, being a high self-monitor has some fairly significant drawbacks.
I finally took the time to figure out why I constantly tweak my behavior and personality depending on the situation I'm in. All throughout high school and college, I've felt the need to be liked by all individuals I come into contact with in order to cope with my self-consciousness in several areas. And I'm still doing this in graduate school, but now as I take some time to reflect on it, I have to ask myself why? It's not worth it to change who I am in order to gain some false approval just so I can feel better about myself. I think I'd feel a lot better about myself if I just were the same person all the time.
A big part of doing the above is being more open about myself, so I'm going to mention some things below - some humorous and snarky, some much more serious. In doing so, I hope you can gather a more complete picture of who I am.
-I have extreme Rutgers spirit, to the point where all my Penn friends almost surely find it annoying (and have probably done so for the past month).
-I enjoy watching trashy TV, and I don't plan on stopping anytime soon.
-During elementary school, I can count how many times I had friends over my house on one hand (due to the fact that my parents were divorced and my mom had to work two jobs).
-I tend to rationalize everything (see above item).
-I take all forms of rejection as an opinion of myself, rather than as a reflection of the individual circumstance.
-I have a habit of posting lyrics as my Facebook status; Oftentimes, they are directed towards certain people.
-I feel the only people who really understand me are my mom, dad, and twin brother.
That's a decent sized list detailing some of my thoughts and ideals. Overall, this post has very cathartic and has helped me refocus. Take what you want from it, but I hope this has shown you that there is much more to me than just the energetic redhead you see on a daily basis.
9/27/2009
God Help Me If I Ever Have Children...
It boggles my mind how fast kids seem to grow up these days. Hell, in less than a decade from the time I entered high school, 13, 14, and 15 year old girls are exchanging J-14 Magazine for Elle. And who can blame them when their resident superstar Miley Cyrus is posing on the cover of that very adult magazine. And not merely posing, but doing so in a revealing way. Haven't seen the pictures yet? Well, judge for yourself then (archived via Google Images):
Nothing says role model for early teen girls more than lying on your back in black leather thigh-high boots.
If that hasn't convinced you, you should check out Miley's latest music video, "Party in the USA". Here's a hint on what it's like - the lyrics "movin' my hips like yeah!" are in the oft-repeated refrain. Also, in the opening verse, she sings "Hoped off the plane at L.A.X./ Welcome to the world of fame excess", followed by an interestingly placed "Whoa!". When I listened to the song for the first time, I thought she actually said "fame and sex", which would definitely fit arriving in Los Angeles, as well as the intriguingly timed "Whoa!". Maybe I'm reading into too much here, but listen and see what you think.
In the recent weeks we've seen another addition into the "kids are growing up so damn fast" file, this time on the male side - or more correctly, the boy side. Enter Justin Bieber, a youTube sensation recently signed by megastar Usher. His first video entitled "One Time" has just under 7 million views on youTube, and his buzz rating has been through the roof.
Acknowledging the overall hilarity that is a 15 year old boy singing about his "one love, one heart, one life", some of the remaining lyrics are just ridiculous. My personal favorite is "Shawty right there/ She's got everything I need/ And I'ma tell her one time/ Give you everything you need down to my last dime."
That's right, this kid is rolling in so much cash that you can forget about daddy, the one Justin Bieber will keep feeding you that sugar now. Oh, and don't forget that your bedtime is 10:00pm and you have Junior Varsity soccer practice tomorrow afternoon. [sarcasm alert].
Point to note - normally you have to have 1) gone though puberty; and 2) be able to get into a rated R movie without mommy or daddy's permission before you can start signing about "shawtys".
Shifting back to Miley now, perhaps the most disheartening thing about her is that she is priming young girls (in some instances, really young girls) to be 100% style and 0% substance. Let's be real, no 16 year-olds watch Disney channel. So instead of being one of her audience's peers, she's being their cool big sister they never had. You know, the one who got to stay out late and wear clothes more suitable for a 21 year old than a 15 year old.
All of this emphasis on the perfect body, hair, make up - perhaps there shouldn't be any focus on this no matter what age you are. OK, that's being naive, but can we at least shield our little sisters from this world until they're old enough for a driver's license?
You would think that somewhere companies wouldn't exploit 16 year old girls, turning them into mini-sexbombs in order to meet quarterly estimates. Of course I was joking on that statement, that would never happen. In case you forgot, "Cash Rules Everything Around Me, C.R.E.A.M. get the money, dollar dollar bill y'all."
During "Party in the USA", Miley sings that her "tummy's turning, feeling kinda homesick". I think if I ever have a daughter, my tummy's gonna be turning forever knowing she'll eventually have to deal with all this craziness!
Nothing says role model for early teen girls more than lying on your back in black leather thigh-high boots.
If that hasn't convinced you, you should check out Miley's latest music video, "Party in the USA". Here's a hint on what it's like - the lyrics "movin' my hips like yeah!" are in the oft-repeated refrain. Also, in the opening verse, she sings "Hoped off the plane at L.A.X./ Welcome to the world of fame excess", followed by an interestingly placed "Whoa!". When I listened to the song for the first time, I thought she actually said "fame and sex", which would definitely fit arriving in Los Angeles, as well as the intriguingly timed "Whoa!". Maybe I'm reading into too much here, but listen and see what you think.
In the recent weeks we've seen another addition into the "kids are growing up so damn fast" file, this time on the male side - or more correctly, the boy side. Enter Justin Bieber, a youTube sensation recently signed by megastar Usher. His first video entitled "One Time" has just under 7 million views on youTube, and his buzz rating has been through the roof.
Acknowledging the overall hilarity that is a 15 year old boy singing about his "one love, one heart, one life", some of the remaining lyrics are just ridiculous. My personal favorite is "Shawty right there/ She's got everything I need/ And I'ma tell her one time/ Give you everything you need down to my last dime."
That's right, this kid is rolling in so much cash that you can forget about daddy, the one Justin Bieber will keep feeding you that sugar now. Oh, and don't forget that your bedtime is 10:00pm and you have Junior Varsity soccer practice tomorrow afternoon. [sarcasm alert].
Point to note - normally you have to have 1) gone though puberty; and 2) be able to get into a rated R movie without mommy or daddy's permission before you can start signing about "shawtys".
Shifting back to Miley now, perhaps the most disheartening thing about her is that she is priming young girls (in some instances, really young girls) to be 100% style and 0% substance. Let's be real, no 16 year-olds watch Disney channel. So instead of being one of her audience's peers, she's being their cool big sister they never had. You know, the one who got to stay out late and wear clothes more suitable for a 21 year old than a 15 year old.
All of this emphasis on the perfect body, hair, make up - perhaps there shouldn't be any focus on this no matter what age you are. OK, that's being naive, but can we at least shield our little sisters from this world until they're old enough for a driver's license?
You would think that somewhere companies wouldn't exploit 16 year old girls, turning them into mini-sexbombs in order to meet quarterly estimates. Of course I was joking on that statement, that would never happen. In case you forgot, "Cash Rules Everything Around Me, C.R.E.A.M. get the money, dollar dollar bill y'all."
During "Party in the USA", Miley sings that her "tummy's turning, feeling kinda homesick". I think if I ever have a daughter, my tummy's gonna be turning forever knowing she'll eventually have to deal with all this craziness!
9/14/2009
First Day of Class + Lab Rotation Updates
So today was my first day of graduate school classes. Everything went really well. It will be quite a busy schedule, with three 90-minute lectures a week (Mon., Wed., Fri.), but as long as I read before hand I will be fine. Plus, all the classes are video recorded and posted on the course website, so I can review actual lectures in addition to my notes and reading. Good stuff.
Also, I've identified one additional rotation lab that I am interested in working in for my first lab rotation. The lab of Dr. Kurt Hankenson, D.V.M., Ph.D. works on bone, which I did extensively throughout my undergraduate time at Rutgers. Here is a summary of Dr. Hankenson's research taken from his faculty page:
MSCs are the precursors for osteoblasts, which are bone-forming cells. My undergraduate researched focused on the protein osteocalcin (OC), which is a protein synthesized and secreted by osteoblasts that plays a crucial role in bone mineralization. As you can see, my undergraduate research looked at fully mature osteoblasts rather than the progenitor MSCs, and as such the research focus differs from that of Dr. Hankenson; at Rutgers, our lab was looking at effects of OC deficiency (which assumes already functioning MSCs), however if MSC function is impaired, then osteoblast formation is also impaired, so OC concentration will likely decrease in the first place.
In any event, Dr. Hankenson was very excited to hear of my strong interest in his lab, and I have a meeting scheduled with him for later in the week. As an aside, I was informed of Dr. Hankenson's work by a graduate student named Grace at the CAMB Happy Hour this past Thursday evening. I have always maintained the perception from current students and faculty that continuing your undergraduate work is frowned upon, as it limits one's personal scientific expansion. And while I respect and understand that advice, I was refreshed and renewed to hear the Grace's rebuttal, being that if you are sure you are excited about the science, why not continue your undergraduate work? You will have unwavering passion for the work, and you could finish your thesis in a shorter amount of time.
Overall, I know the point of rotations is to expand one's research experiences, learn new experimentation techniques, and ultimately find out what tickles your scientific fancy. And now I'm reassured that it is OK if what gets me motivated and excited is the same science I had been working on for four years at Rutgers.
And lastly, I am still getting used to calling faculty by their first names! It's very odd for me, as I was raised that you always show respect by using a proper title (in most instances here, Doctor or Professor works fine) followed by their surname. As I refer to professors' names by their last name, I see the eye rolls of older students. So that is taking a while to get used to, but no matter how many scientists I develop first-name relationships with, I don't think I will ever refer to my undergraduate P.I. by anything else than the perfectly appropriate Dr. B!
Cheers,
Mike C.
Also, I've identified one additional rotation lab that I am interested in working in for my first lab rotation. The lab of Dr. Kurt Hankenson, D.V.M., Ph.D. works on bone, which I did extensively throughout my undergraduate time at Rutgers. Here is a summary of Dr. Hankenson's research taken from his faculty page:
The guiding mission of our research program is to better understand cellular and molecular mechanisms of bone remodeling and regeneration. With this knowledge we will be better equipped to develop treatments to restore bone mass in osteoporosis and enhance regeneration of bone defects and non-unions. This research focus has developed around two intersecting themes: (1) the regulation of bone cell function by extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins, and (2) the regulation of marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) quiescence, proliferation, fate determination, and differentiation.
MSCs are the precursors for osteoblasts, which are bone-forming cells. My undergraduate researched focused on the protein osteocalcin (OC), which is a protein synthesized and secreted by osteoblasts that plays a crucial role in bone mineralization. As you can see, my undergraduate research looked at fully mature osteoblasts rather than the progenitor MSCs, and as such the research focus differs from that of Dr. Hankenson; at Rutgers, our lab was looking at effects of OC deficiency (which assumes already functioning MSCs), however if MSC function is impaired, then osteoblast formation is also impaired, so OC concentration will likely decrease in the first place.
In any event, Dr. Hankenson was very excited to hear of my strong interest in his lab, and I have a meeting scheduled with him for later in the week. As an aside, I was informed of Dr. Hankenson's work by a graduate student named Grace at the CAMB Happy Hour this past Thursday evening. I have always maintained the perception from current students and faculty that continuing your undergraduate work is frowned upon, as it limits one's personal scientific expansion. And while I respect and understand that advice, I was refreshed and renewed to hear the Grace's rebuttal, being that if you are sure you are excited about the science, why not continue your undergraduate work? You will have unwavering passion for the work, and you could finish your thesis in a shorter amount of time.
Overall, I know the point of rotations is to expand one's research experiences, learn new experimentation techniques, and ultimately find out what tickles your scientific fancy. And now I'm reassured that it is OK if what gets me motivated and excited is the same science I had been working on for four years at Rutgers.
And lastly, I am still getting used to calling faculty by their first names! It's very odd for me, as I was raised that you always show respect by using a proper title (in most instances here, Doctor or Professor works fine) followed by their surname. As I refer to professors' names by their last name, I see the eye rolls of older students. So that is taking a while to get used to, but no matter how many scientists I develop first-name relationships with, I don't think I will ever refer to my undergraduate P.I. by anything else than the perfectly appropriate Dr. B!
Cheers,
Mike C.
9/06/2009
Guests of the Fringe
Apologies for my blogging hiatus, as I was reminiscing this weekend on my undergraduate times with my friends at Rutgers. Of course, there was plenty of debauchery Friday and Saturday night in New Brunswick, but Thursday here in Philadelphia was quite a night as well.
My roommates and some of our new friends headed out to the Festival Bar at the Hub (5th and Fairmont) to check out the opening night of the 2009 Philadelphia Live Arts Festival, which runs September 4-19. The Festival appears to be a horde of artistic ventures, including dance, theater, improv, and visual arts, and the information book is over 70 pages long (pictures forthcoming).
Our crew headed on the Market-Frankford Line and made our way to what appeared to be a desolate area of cross streets and traffic lights. One of our members caught a glance of a banner directing us to the back of this small warehouse, and as we carefully trekked over, we saw the beginnings of the bar.
The bar was a more like a lounge with a dance floor, with fascinating art displays on the perimeter along with spectacularly upholstered couches and loveseats. The experience could be best described as entering a dada world.
It was a slow night overall being the opening night, but the word on the street says it becomes a poppin' dance club for the rest of the two week festival, especially on the weekends. As the description of the bar reads on its website, "It’s your once-a-year, ultra-hip-coutry-lodge-backwoods-Pennsylvania-taxidermy-antlers-yellowed-couch-doily-make-out-lounge."
I suppose the couches are for the "make-out-lounge" part - seems like I'll check it out next weekend then! In the words of our dadaist Frenchmen and women, "ooh, la la".
My roommates and some of our new friends headed out to the Festival Bar at the Hub (5th and Fairmont) to check out the opening night of the 2009 Philadelphia Live Arts Festival, which runs September 4-19. The Festival appears to be a horde of artistic ventures, including dance, theater, improv, and visual arts, and the information book is over 70 pages long (pictures forthcoming).
Our crew headed on the Market-Frankford Line and made our way to what appeared to be a desolate area of cross streets and traffic lights. One of our members caught a glance of a banner directing us to the back of this small warehouse, and as we carefully trekked over, we saw the beginnings of the bar.
The bar was a more like a lounge with a dance floor, with fascinating art displays on the perimeter along with spectacularly upholstered couches and loveseats. The experience could be best described as entering a dada world.
It was a slow night overall being the opening night, but the word on the street says it becomes a poppin' dance club for the rest of the two week festival, especially on the weekends. As the description of the bar reads on its website, "It’s your once-a-year, ultra-hip-coutry-lodge-backwoods-Pennsylvania-taxidermy-antlers-yellowed-couch-doily-make-out-lounge."
I suppose the couches are for the "make-out-lounge" part - seems like I'll check it out next weekend then! In the words of our dadaist Frenchmen and women, "ooh, la la".
8/29/2009
Welcome to the Illadelph
So after a week of moving my belongings down from northern New Jersey, and about an equal amount of time actually being in Philadelphia, I've finally decided to make a post about my first few days here.
Overall, the move went very smoothly, save for the one piece of Ikea furniture that came without instructions! But that's ok, since we returned it and will be getting a complete one soon.
My roommates are all spectacular, and we have developed a good chemistry with each other already. There have been several gatherings together, including a few bar trips, a Philadelphia tour and trip to Reading Terminal Market with some newly made BGS friends, and even hosting a friendly game of Quarters at our humble abode. All in all, I have started strong in developing a social network here in Philadelphia, and as I continue to do more of the Penn seminar events and meet people in classes, it will only get larger and more involved.
Speaking of my apartment, here are some pictures. Be kind, as they are taken on my iPhone, so some are a bit grainy, but overall they definitely capture the awesomeness that is my pad. You can view all of the photos of my new apartment at this link.
Additionally, here are some pictures from my city tour of Philadelphia this morning. I've been to a good amount of these places already (Independence Hall, Liberty Bell, etc.) but I found cool new places to try out and met some new friends to hang out with, so a good day's event all around.
As I continue to try out new places in Philadelphia and meet new people, I'll be sure to update here about my adventures. Though I am at Penn primarily for academics, I am also here to further develop my knowledge and experiences of city living and develop and foster new friendships.
If you have any cool events or places that you want me to experience, please drop me an email and I will do my best to try them out!
Cheers,
Mike C.
Overall, the move went very smoothly, save for the one piece of Ikea furniture that came without instructions! But that's ok, since we returned it and will be getting a complete one soon.
My roommates are all spectacular, and we have developed a good chemistry with each other already. There have been several gatherings together, including a few bar trips, a Philadelphia tour and trip to Reading Terminal Market with some newly made BGS friends, and even hosting a friendly game of Quarters at our humble abode. All in all, I have started strong in developing a social network here in Philadelphia, and as I continue to do more of the Penn seminar events and meet people in classes, it will only get larger and more involved.
Speaking of my apartment, here are some pictures. Be kind, as they are taken on my iPhone, so some are a bit grainy, but overall they definitely capture the awesomeness that is my pad. You can view all of the photos of my new apartment at this link.
Additionally, here are some pictures from my city tour of Philadelphia this morning. I've been to a good amount of these places already (Independence Hall, Liberty Bell, etc.) but I found cool new places to try out and met some new friends to hang out with, so a good day's event all around.
As I continue to try out new places in Philadelphia and meet new people, I'll be sure to update here about my adventures. Though I am at Penn primarily for academics, I am also here to further develop my knowledge and experiences of city living and develop and foster new friendships.
If you have any cool events or places that you want me to experience, please drop me an email and I will do my best to try them out!
Cheers,
Mike C.
8/17/2009
This Would Make Ponce de Leon's Day!
The ever-desired "Fountain of Youth". Though it has never been found, many of us try to emulate its effects, spending billions of dollars on cremes, plastic surgery, and Botox. And despite our incessant infatuation with staying young forever, we always eventually end up on the losing side of nature. But via the power of science, could we be as close as we've ever been to an actual product that slows down the aging process?
Research scientists have focused on two areas that seem to delay the aging process: caloric restriction and single gene changes. In published studies, mice on a calorie restricted diet (defined as 30% fewer calories than a normal diet) have been shown to live 30-40% longer than their normal diet counterparts. And, perhaps just as important, the calorie restricted mice seem to be protected from disease. Critics point to the use of lab mice compared to wild mice, and their skepticism about increased longevity seems to be warranted. But nevertheless, even they cannot deny the beneficial effect of a calorie restricted diet on the health of both lab and wild mice.
The key compound in this altered regulation of metabolism is resveratrol, which is found in grapes and red wine. Resveratrol is known to be a very strong sirtuin activator, which explains its alleged effect in delaying the aging process. Sirtuins are compounds that detect low levels of energy reserves in cells and are activated when levels are low, which would be crucial for proteins that regulate metabolism. It is believed by some scientists that sirtuins can explain the French paradox - why the French have a high life expectancy while eating a high-fat diet, but also one flush with resveratrol-containing wine. Thus, develop a compound that can also activate sirtuins and you could hold the scientific "Fountain of Youth".
That's just what Dr. David A. Sinclair of the Harvard Medical School is doing, with his co-founding of Sirtris Pharmaceuticals. And apparently his company has something, as it was sold to pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline last year for $720 million.
More research needs to be conducted to confirm the anti-aging benefits of a resveratrol-like product, but if one can be developed and confirmed, it will take a whole legion of bioethicists to examine the implications of such a development.
Some already believe our life expectancy is too high to be sustainable. If we eventually do get to the point where the average life expectancy in developed nations reaches 90+ years, we will have no choice but to mandate longer work careers and longer waits to receive benefits, such as Medicare and Social Security eligibility. And with people working longer, the impact on entrants into the work field could be severe. Of course, there are issues about expanded energy use, our planet's population capacity, limits in food production levels, among many others.
If these new compounds could allow us to lead healthier lives without expanding our life expectancy, then the economic impact could actually be very beneficial. Health care costs would decrease due to overall improved health, but the average total length of care would remain the same, thus leading to lower costs. But would that even be possible? Every advancement that has made us healthier (adequate nutrition, vaccinations, more effective treatments for many diseases) has lead to drastic increases in our life expectancy. In only 160 years - an infinitesimal amount of time in regard to biology - female life expectancy at birth nearly doubled, from 45 years in 1840 to 85 years in 2000, nearly all of that contributed to our scientific advances in health care. And with humans seemingly being the only species to defy the omnipotent "S-curve", anything that adds enables our total population to increase at an even faster rate could have potentially drastic effects.
What are all your thoughts, both on the science aspect as well as the ethical/philosophical aspect of anti-aging compounds? Comments always welcomed.
Research scientists have focused on two areas that seem to delay the aging process: caloric restriction and single gene changes. In published studies, mice on a calorie restricted diet (defined as 30% fewer calories than a normal diet) have been shown to live 30-40% longer than their normal diet counterparts. And, perhaps just as important, the calorie restricted mice seem to be protected from disease. Critics point to the use of lab mice compared to wild mice, and their skepticism about increased longevity seems to be warranted. But nevertheless, even they cannot deny the beneficial effect of a calorie restricted diet on the health of both lab and wild mice.
The key compound in this altered regulation of metabolism is resveratrol, which is found in grapes and red wine. Resveratrol is known to be a very strong sirtuin activator, which explains its alleged effect in delaying the aging process. Sirtuins are compounds that detect low levels of energy reserves in cells and are activated when levels are low, which would be crucial for proteins that regulate metabolism. It is believed by some scientists that sirtuins can explain the French paradox - why the French have a high life expectancy while eating a high-fat diet, but also one flush with resveratrol-containing wine. Thus, develop a compound that can also activate sirtuins and you could hold the scientific "Fountain of Youth".
That's just what Dr. David A. Sinclair of the Harvard Medical School is doing, with his co-founding of Sirtris Pharmaceuticals. And apparently his company has something, as it was sold to pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline last year for $720 million.
More research needs to be conducted to confirm the anti-aging benefits of a resveratrol-like product, but if one can be developed and confirmed, it will take a whole legion of bioethicists to examine the implications of such a development.
Some already believe our life expectancy is too high to be sustainable. If we eventually do get to the point where the average life expectancy in developed nations reaches 90+ years, we will have no choice but to mandate longer work careers and longer waits to receive benefits, such as Medicare and Social Security eligibility. And with people working longer, the impact on entrants into the work field could be severe. Of course, there are issues about expanded energy use, our planet's population capacity, limits in food production levels, among many others.
If these new compounds could allow us to lead healthier lives without expanding our life expectancy, then the economic impact could actually be very beneficial. Health care costs would decrease due to overall improved health, but the average total length of care would remain the same, thus leading to lower costs. But would that even be possible? Every advancement that has made us healthier (adequate nutrition, vaccinations, more effective treatments for many diseases) has lead to drastic increases in our life expectancy. In only 160 years - an infinitesimal amount of time in regard to biology - female life expectancy at birth nearly doubled, from 45 years in 1840 to 85 years in 2000, nearly all of that contributed to our scientific advances in health care. And with humans seemingly being the only species to defy the omnipotent "S-curve", anything that adds enables our total population to increase at an even faster rate could have potentially drastic effects.
What are all your thoughts, both on the science aspect as well as the ethical/philosophical aspect of anti-aging compounds? Comments always welcomed.
Open and Shut Case? Even With DNA Evidence, Perhaps Not Anymore
In our CSI-obsessed society, we are conditioned to believe that DNA evidence is the one infallible item in a prosecutor's collection. And for good reason, because all humans (save for those like myself - identical multiples) have different coding DNA. It's true that the percentage of our own DNA different from another human being is very small, but alas that percentage spread over 3 billion basepairs is still a lot of DNA. And because we all have some DNA that is different from everyone else and technologies exist to reliably detect those differences, prosecutors around the world have been using DNA evidence as the smoking gun in criminal trials.
However, a newly published study casts a shred of doubt on the Holy Grail of crime scenes. The online abstract of the study entitled "Authentication of forensic DNA samples" details the relative ease (at least for those familiar with DNA amplification and cloning technology, which would certainly include all life science professionals) that DNA evidence can be fabricated. More details about the study can be found in this NY Times article.
It must also be noted that the leading scientist of the newly published study is a founder of Nucleix, a biotech company offering an assay that can detect between artificially synthesized and naturally synthesized DNA molecules. The science behind it is actually quite simple. Artificially synthesized DNA, like that amplified via PCR or Whole Genome Amplification, is not methylated (methylation of DNA is known to be a mechanism for regulation of genes), whereas naturally synthesized DNA is partially methylated. Thus, if you assay for methylation, you can determine whether the DNA is artificial or natural depending on whether or not it is methylated.
As scientists, we should investigate on our own anything we read in regard to science, especially when the technique we read about is used for something as serious as evidence certification for crime scenes. Nevertheless, as long as the assay actually works and is reliable, I have no reason to believe the motive of the lead author to be anything devious. It could provide an extra level of protection (or certainty, depending on the circumstances) in criminal cases in which the result literally could be a life or death decision.
As an aside, it is important to note that DNA evidence has been questioned in appropriate instances in the past. A DNA lab in Houston, Texas was found in 2003 by state auditors to have "widespread flaws in its work, including sloppy record-keeping, misinterpreted data and evidence contaminated by water from a leaky roof in the laboratory."
The advance of technology in forensics labs has been, I believe, beneficial to law enforcement and society in general. DNA evidence has been a major tool of both prosecutors and defense lawyers alike, and both groups should welcome additional technology that allows for the evidence to be taken with even more certainty, either for proving guilt or proving innocence.
However, a newly published study casts a shred of doubt on the Holy Grail of crime scenes. The online abstract of the study entitled "Authentication of forensic DNA samples" details the relative ease (at least for those familiar with DNA amplification and cloning technology, which would certainly include all life science professionals) that DNA evidence can be fabricated. More details about the study can be found in this NY Times article.
It must also be noted that the leading scientist of the newly published study is a founder of Nucleix, a biotech company offering an assay that can detect between artificially synthesized and naturally synthesized DNA molecules. The science behind it is actually quite simple. Artificially synthesized DNA, like that amplified via PCR or Whole Genome Amplification, is not methylated (methylation of DNA is known to be a mechanism for regulation of genes), whereas naturally synthesized DNA is partially methylated. Thus, if you assay for methylation, you can determine whether the DNA is artificial or natural depending on whether or not it is methylated.
As scientists, we should investigate on our own anything we read in regard to science, especially when the technique we read about is used for something as serious as evidence certification for crime scenes. Nevertheless, as long as the assay actually works and is reliable, I have no reason to believe the motive of the lead author to be anything devious. It could provide an extra level of protection (or certainty, depending on the circumstances) in criminal cases in which the result literally could be a life or death decision.
As an aside, it is important to note that DNA evidence has been questioned in appropriate instances in the past. A DNA lab in Houston, Texas was found in 2003 by state auditors to have "widespread flaws in its work, including sloppy record-keeping, misinterpreted data and evidence contaminated by water from a leaky roof in the laboratory."
The advance of technology in forensics labs has been, I believe, beneficial to law enforcement and society in general. DNA evidence has been a major tool of both prosecutors and defense lawyers alike, and both groups should welcome additional technology that allows for the evidence to be taken with even more certainty, either for proving guilt or proving innocence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
